US Air Force Secretary Troy Meink recently drew attention by confirming that the United States has deployed weapons in space, but he did not disclose what the weapons are, how they operate, or whether they are designed to target other objects in orbit.

The lack of information is not limited to American space weapons. Experts say uncertainty over the military capabilities of satellites and the development of new weapons remains a major concern as countries expand their activities in space.

What is known about space weapons

Speaking at a defence conference, Meink said the United States had deployed “on-orbit space control weapons capable of defending the Joint Force against hostile adversary action”. The Joint Force refers to US military forces operating together.

However, he did not specify the type of weapons involved.

The 2026 Global Counterspace Capabilities Report, published by the nonprofit Secure World Foundation using publicly available information, provides an overview of potential space weapons and related technologies.

The report identifies five categories of counterspace capabilities and examines systems being developed by 13 countries, including the United States, Russia, China, India, Australia, France, Iran and Israel.

These capabilities include satellites that can approach, inspect, disable or destroy other spacecraft. The report also covers missiles launched from the ground, aircraft or ships to physically destroy satellites.

Other technologies include electronic warfare systems that disrupt satellite communications, lasers and high-powered microwaves that can blind or damage satellite sensors, and cyber operations targeting space networks.

Victoria Samson, chief director of space security and stability at the foundation, which promotes the peaceful use of space, said the existence and physical location of satellites were generally transparent, but their capabilities and intended purposes were much harder to determine.

The United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs, based in Vienna, maintains a register linking space objects to the countries responsible for them.

Under a 1976 agreement, participating states must provide information about launches conducted by governments and private companies, along with the general functions of the objects. However, they are not required to disclose their specific purposes.

Some space technologies can serve both civilian and military purposes.

In 2021, it emerged that China had tested a satellite equipped with a robotic arm capable of approaching another object, grabbing it and moving it out of orbit. China used such technology in 2022 to tow one of its defunct satellites out of orbit for the first time.

The United States also warned two years ago that Russia was developing a new space-based anti-satellite weapon, although the White House said the threat was not imminent at the time.

Then-White House national security spokesman John Kirby declined to say whether the weapon could carry nuclear warheads, but said it would violate the Outer Space Treaty. Russia denied developing the capability.

A treaty born during the Cold War

The Outer Space Treaty is the main international agreement governing how countries explore and use space. The United States, Russia, China and all other nuclear-armed nations are parties to the treaty.

Article IV prohibits signatories from placing nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in Earth’s orbit, installing them on celestial bodies or stationing them in space in any other way.

The treaty also establishes space as an area to be used for peaceful purposes.

Agreed upon in 1967 during the Cold War, the treaty emerged as the United States and the Soviet Union competed to explore space and conducted nuclear tests beyond Earth’s atmosphere.

The space environment was vastly different at the time.

Jonathan McDowell, a retired astronomer at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, has tracked satellite launches for more than 40 years.

By the end of 1967, only 128 satellites were orbiting Earth and communicating with the planet, McDowell said. All were part of publicly funded, state-backed programmes.

Today, around 16,810 functioning satellites are in orbit, he said, many of them operated by private companies such as SpaceX, which runs the Starlink satellite network.

The dangers of nuclear weapons in space became clear through a series of tests conducted by the two superpowers.

In 1962, the United States detonated several atomic bombs in space under Operation Fishbowl. The first test, known as Starfish Prime, was launched from an atoll southwest of Hawaii.

The explosion created an artificial radiation belt that destroyed several satellites and partially disrupted street lighting and telephone lines in Hawaii.

The Soviet Union also conducted nuclear tests in space under Project K between 1961 and 1962. The tests caused power-grid failures, disrupted telephone lines and triggered a fire that destroyed an entire power plant in Kazakhstan.

These tests demonstrated the serious risks that nuclear explosions in space could pose to civilian infrastructure and communications on Earth. They helped push the superpowers towards an agreement banning nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction in space.

Experts point to gaps in international law

Despite the treaty, analysts say international law has not kept pace with modern space technology and military developments.

Jessica West, a senior researcher at the Canadian peace and security research institute Project Ploughshares, said the legal framework governing space needed fundamental changes.

She described the Outer Space Treaty as a constitutional foundation that remained relevant, but said the international community had failed to build a sufficiently strong legal framework around it.

She highlighted the need for better mechanisms to verify space activities and broader rules addressing conventional weapons in space.

Michelle Hanlon, executive director of the Center for Air and Space Law at the University of Mississippi School of Law, also pointed to a gap in the treaty, saying it did not adequately prohibit conventional weapons in space.

No agreement on what constitutes a space weapon

International negotiations on a new agreement to ban all weapons in space have stalled partly because countries cannot agree on what qualifies as a space weapon, Samson said.

Many technologies have both civilian and military applications, making it difficult to distinguish weapons from equipment used for peaceful purposes.

“You can get up close to a satellite to refuel it, but you can also get up close to a satellite to release objects at it, shine a laser at it, or try to jam it,” Samson said.

The debate comes as the United States, under President Donald Trump, places greater emphasis on space-based military capabilities.

During his first term, Trump established the US Space Force as a separate military branch in 2019. In his second term, he announced the Golden Dome missile defence system, which includes plans to deploy weapons in space.

Russia and China have attempted to introduce a new treaty prohibiting the placement of all weapons in space, but the proposals have faced obstacles, partly because of disagreements over definitions.

Washington has also argued that the proposals fail to address ground-based anti-satellite missiles, which can generate large amounts of dangerous debris when used.

In November 2021, Russia launched an anti-satellite missile that destroyed a defunct Soviet-era satellite, creating more than 1,500 pieces of debris. The fragments increased risks to astronauts aboard the International Space Station, where US and Russian crews were present, as well as to China’s Tiangong space station.

With negotiations on a comprehensive treaty stalled, international discussions have increasingly focused on responsible behaviour in space, including measures to prevent the accumulation of dangerous debris.

Space weapons may not involve physical destruction

Samson said the United States had long followed a policy of avoiding the creation of space debris because it threatens the safety of spaceflight and can damage American interests.

For that reason, she said, the weapons Meink referred to could be non-kinetic systems, such as electronic jammers that disrupt communications, rather than weapons that physically destroy targets.

Space debris is produced not only by weapons but also by collisions between satellites, which can break them into countless fragments and smaller particles. Travelling at high speeds, these fragments can damage or destroy other spacecraft.

Steven Freeland, an emeritus professor of international law at Western Sydney University and a professorial fellow at Bond University, warned that such collisions could trigger a chain reaction.

“If you start having collisions causing more debris, and more debris causing more collisions, you run the risk of this irreversible cascading effect,” he said.

According to the European Space Agency, space surveillance networks regularly track around 46,950 pieces of debris in Earth’s orbit.

Statistical models suggest that millions of smaller pieces of space debris also remain in orbit, posing additional risks to satellites and other spacecraft.